Victory for hunters as CPS says hounds can 'search' for foxes

In the clear: The prosecutors' decision not to challenge a key High Court ruling means action will be taken against fewer hunts

Prosecutors today dropped an attempt to tighten the law on hunting with dogs in a key legal decision that is likely to reduce significantly the number of people taken to court.

In a ruling that will be seen as a victory for pro-hunting campaigners, the Crown Prosecution Service said it had decided not to challenge a High Court verdict that allows huntsmen to use dogs to "search for" foxes to flush them out into the open.

The effect will be to narrow the number of occasions on which criminal action can be taken and, potentially, to make it harder for police and prosecutors to determine when an offence has been committed.

The CPS said it was also giving up an attempt to overturn a separate judicial ruling which means hunts will no longer have to prove they are covered by exemptions in the hunting legislation to avoid conviction.

Instead, the onus will now be on prosecutors to demonstrate that none of the numerous exemptions in the hunting ban legislation applies.

Announcing today's decision, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, insisted hunters would continue to face the threat of court action, although he said other pending cases would be reviewed in the light of the High Court decision.

"We have considered the High Court judgment carefully and decided the rulings should be accepted," he said. "We will now be reviewing those cases going through the system which have been waiting on the High Court judgment to see what impact, if any, it may have."

Mr Starmer's decision follows a recent case in which two High Court judges ruled that Exmoor huntsman Tony Wright, 54, had not broken the law despite being filmed twice in 2005 apparently chasing a fox with dogs.

The judges said Mr Wright, who had previously been convicted by magistrates for breaking the 2004 Hunting Act, should be cleared as the use of dogs to "search for" a wild animal to flush out or stalk it was not in breach of the legislation.

They also ruled that prosecutors would have to prove Mr Wright - or any other huntsman- was not covered by the "most unusually formulated bundle of diverse exemptions" contained in the Act.

At the time of the case, the CPS argued that it if searching for a fox with dogs was not illegal it was "difficult to see how Parliament's intention of preventing cruelty and bringing an end to the sport of hunting" could be met.

Today's decision means prosecutors have accepted defeat and will be limited to bringing cases only where they are confident it can be proved to criminal standards that a fox or other wild animal was being chased by dogs, and not simply "searched" for.

The Countryside Alliance, which campaigned against the hunting ban, has claimed this will result in far fewer prosecutions and most legal experts agree the new definition of the law will significantly reduce the likelihood of future convictions.

The DPP insisted he would still bring cases when evidence the law has been broken could be obtained.

He added: "The fact that the CPS has decided not to take this to the House of Lords does not mean that there will be no more prosecutions under the Hunting Act.

"On the contrary, where there are allegations that the law has been broken, the CPS will continue to work with the police to build cases and decide whether there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute."

The League Against Cruel Sports, which brought the initial case against Mr Wright as a private prosecution, has also insisted the hunting legislation will remain effective and anyone caught chasing or killing a fox, deer, hare or mink will face court.